“Some contemporary commentators incline to the view that the long history of the copyright may be coming to an end. That will be a question for the twenty-first century.” This quotation comes from the end of the John Feather reading, but I think it is also a good summary of the film we watched in class, and much of this week’s readings. It is an intriguing question, and at this point it is impossible to answer.
Personally, I’m pretty divided on the issue. The Internet is so vast I’m not really sure how anyone could hope to police the issue of copyright. And laws lose validity when people start ignoring them. At the same time, there is a lot of money in book (and film, and album) sales. I find it hard to believe that the twenty-first century is going to usher in an age of completely free information and artistic expression. Lars Ulrich of Metallica is kind of a jerk, but I agree with him that someone is going to be making money off of these products, somehow. As I said, I’m pretty divided on the issue, but it will be interesting to see what happens.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
The belated library report
“Survivor: History of the Library” is not an actual website, but an article on the larger History Magazine website. This magazine was created in 1999, and is now published bimonthly by Moorshead Magazine Ltd. It is available on newsstands, at genealogical supply stores, and by subscription. The website was established to provide information about the magazine, and to help promote sales. One of the ways this latter goal is accomplished is by the inclusion of the “preview an issue” link on the website. Someone interested in perusing a sample issue may click on a tab on the left side of the home page, which leads to a selection of articles. One of the choices is “Survivor: History of the Library.” It was written by Barbara Krasner-Khait, and originally published in the October/November issue of 2001. Because the article is adapted from a magazine it is not very visually interesting. It does include pictures, and it is easy enough to read, but it is basically just a block of text that is rarely broken up by anything else of interest.
Krasner-Khait attempts to present the entire history of the library in a few pages, which is no easy task. Libraries have existed in some form for nearly as long as civilization has existed. Though outwardly the first libraries only bare a marginal resemblance to today’s familiar public libraries, the basic idea of a place existing to store a culture’s combine knowledge (what Krasner-Khait calls a “repository for knowledge”) is much the same. In Mesopotamia, for example, archeologists have discovered a “library” that contains 30,000 clay tablets and is over 5,000 years old!
There were other early “libraries” in ancient Egypt and Assyria, but it was not until the time of the ancient Greeks that they became more prevalent. The appearance of libraries was mostly a result of the Greek interest in a flourishing cultural and intellectual life. The Library of Alexandria was established around 300 BC for many of the same reasons. King Ptolemy I and his successors had many goals for the library, including a desire to obtain half a million scrolls. One of the most interesting things about the Library of Alexandria section of the article, was the supposition that the Ptolemies “engaged in unorthodox…methods” when acquiring scrolls for the library. This contrasts interestingly with the more traditional view of the Library of Alexandria as a beacon of almost utopian enlightenment in an otherwise ignorant world. It does not take away from the accomplishment that the Library of Alexandria certainly was, it just makes the story slightly more plausible and a lot more human.
After the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, libraries were reborn in Rome where they again flourished for a time. Though there were certainly “scholarly” libraries in Rome, it was here that the first libraries for the masses appeared. By the year 350 AD, there were at least twenty-nine of these libraries in Rome, and it was considered a great honor to serve as a library director. But despite this widespread interest, when Roman society declined, its libraries were quick to follow the same path.
But all hope was not lost; libraries were reborn yet again. First this happened in the monasteries of Europe, and then again in the Renaissance. The final section of Krasner-Khait’s article is sub-titled “The Golden Age.” This part of the article begins in the1600’s and leads nearly to the present day. She briefly discusses the establishment of some of Europe’s most famous libraries, such as the one at Oxford University, before skipping across an ocean and a few hundred years to talk about the first American libraries. This part of the article seems decidedly rushed; there is no mention of Dewey, the Library of Congress, or the technological changes of the modern library. The Carnegie Libraries are mentioned, but they are dealt with in a single sentence.
I felt the rushed quality of the last section was sort of indicative of one of the issues I had with the article overall. Although the article attempted to be an overview of the entire history of the library, this is not practically possible when you are covering some 7,000 years in roughly five pages. Because of limitations of space, some parts of the article had to be less in depth than others. In this case the final 500 years or so were especially briefly discussed, and no section was incredibly thorough. In addition, it would have been interesting to read about libraries in the present. The present, after all, is the continuation of history. And though I realize this would have been impossible in the original History Magazine article, I think that it would have been interesting to update the article by taking advantage of some of the internet’s capabilities. Perhaps links could have been added to each sub-section of the article, to allow people to learn more about specific sections they found interesting. I am certainly not claiming that Krasner-Khait’s article is insufficient or factually flawed, but it is prudent to say it would only be truly helpful for a general population with a casual interest in libraries. For example, I have worked in a library for nearly seven years, which is why I wanted to present on this website. But if I had to write a research paper on the subject of libraries, I certainly would use other websites.
Finally, there are two interesting themes that the article raises. The overall thesis of the article is that libraries, though perhaps not universal, have great staying power. Though they have changed dramatically, and though they have gone in and out of fashion, libraries have survived. 30,000 clay tablets in ancient Mesopotamia may not seem to have a lot in common with the Undergraduate Library, but they have much the same purpose. The other theme is related to this idea, but it is more subtle. Krasner-Khait implies that the creation of libraries is intimately connected to the quality of a society. Libraries seem to be linked to civilization itself. Though this may at first seem to be overstepping a bit, it is really not that far-fetched. The acquisition and sharing of knowledge, literacy, and intellectual interests are all linked to the creation and support of libraries. And as we have been learning this semester, these are things that are capable of altering man’s relationship with God, government, his neighbors, and himself. Certainly an intellectual life, and by extension libraries, are essential to any developed civilization.
Krasner-Khait attempts to present the entire history of the library in a few pages, which is no easy task. Libraries have existed in some form for nearly as long as civilization has existed. Though outwardly the first libraries only bare a marginal resemblance to today’s familiar public libraries, the basic idea of a place existing to store a culture’s combine knowledge (what Krasner-Khait calls a “repository for knowledge”) is much the same. In Mesopotamia, for example, archeologists have discovered a “library” that contains 30,000 clay tablets and is over 5,000 years old!
There were other early “libraries” in ancient Egypt and Assyria, but it was not until the time of the ancient Greeks that they became more prevalent. The appearance of libraries was mostly a result of the Greek interest in a flourishing cultural and intellectual life. The Library of Alexandria was established around 300 BC for many of the same reasons. King Ptolemy I and his successors had many goals for the library, including a desire to obtain half a million scrolls. One of the most interesting things about the Library of Alexandria section of the article, was the supposition that the Ptolemies “engaged in unorthodox…methods” when acquiring scrolls for the library. This contrasts interestingly with the more traditional view of the Library of Alexandria as a beacon of almost utopian enlightenment in an otherwise ignorant world. It does not take away from the accomplishment that the Library of Alexandria certainly was, it just makes the story slightly more plausible and a lot more human.
After the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, libraries were reborn in Rome where they again flourished for a time. Though there were certainly “scholarly” libraries in Rome, it was here that the first libraries for the masses appeared. By the year 350 AD, there were at least twenty-nine of these libraries in Rome, and it was considered a great honor to serve as a library director. But despite this widespread interest, when Roman society declined, its libraries were quick to follow the same path.
But all hope was not lost; libraries were reborn yet again. First this happened in the monasteries of Europe, and then again in the Renaissance. The final section of Krasner-Khait’s article is sub-titled “The Golden Age.” This part of the article begins in the1600’s and leads nearly to the present day. She briefly discusses the establishment of some of Europe’s most famous libraries, such as the one at Oxford University, before skipping across an ocean and a few hundred years to talk about the first American libraries. This part of the article seems decidedly rushed; there is no mention of Dewey, the Library of Congress, or the technological changes of the modern library. The Carnegie Libraries are mentioned, but they are dealt with in a single sentence.
I felt the rushed quality of the last section was sort of indicative of one of the issues I had with the article overall. Although the article attempted to be an overview of the entire history of the library, this is not practically possible when you are covering some 7,000 years in roughly five pages. Because of limitations of space, some parts of the article had to be less in depth than others. In this case the final 500 years or so were especially briefly discussed, and no section was incredibly thorough. In addition, it would have been interesting to read about libraries in the present. The present, after all, is the continuation of history. And though I realize this would have been impossible in the original History Magazine article, I think that it would have been interesting to update the article by taking advantage of some of the internet’s capabilities. Perhaps links could have been added to each sub-section of the article, to allow people to learn more about specific sections they found interesting. I am certainly not claiming that Krasner-Khait’s article is insufficient or factually flawed, but it is prudent to say it would only be truly helpful for a general population with a casual interest in libraries. For example, I have worked in a library for nearly seven years, which is why I wanted to present on this website. But if I had to write a research paper on the subject of libraries, I certainly would use other websites.
Finally, there are two interesting themes that the article raises. The overall thesis of the article is that libraries, though perhaps not universal, have great staying power. Though they have changed dramatically, and though they have gone in and out of fashion, libraries have survived. 30,000 clay tablets in ancient Mesopotamia may not seem to have a lot in common with the Undergraduate Library, but they have much the same purpose. The other theme is related to this idea, but it is more subtle. Krasner-Khait implies that the creation of libraries is intimately connected to the quality of a society. Libraries seem to be linked to civilization itself. Though this may at first seem to be overstepping a bit, it is really not that far-fetched. The acquisition and sharing of knowledge, literacy, and intellectual interests are all linked to the creation and support of libraries. And as we have been learning this semester, these are things that are capable of altering man’s relationship with God, government, his neighbors, and himself. Certainly an intellectual life, and by extension libraries, are essential to any developed civilization.
Kastan---Week seven
“The material form and location in which we encounter the written word are active contributors to the meaning of what is read” (Kastan 2.) Perhaps this statement is self-evident, but I think it feels counter intuitive to many modern people who have come to understand literature in terms of “The Great Books.” Especially, with someone like Shakespeare this seems to be true. Shakespeare’s works seem to exist on their own; it is almost as though they are outside of the actual act of creation. They just are. How could there be a copy of Hamlet in which his most famous soliloquy is altered: “To be, or not to be, I there’s the point” (Kastan 26). What the heck is that?!
My point is basically that this article sort of brought me down to earth a little bit. Of course it is impossible that any text could be exactly what was in the author’s mind. And certainly texts are going to have variations, specifically in the 1600’s. I also think Kastan is completely right in saying that a written text and the actual production of a play are two different things. Much of a play’s production does depend on the actors’ improvisations and non-verbal communications. Therefore, it is impossible for any written copy to claim it is “exactly as it was preformed on such and such a date.”
At the same time I do not know if I am in complete agreement with Kastan. Maybe I just don’t quite understand his argument, but I really don’t think that the way my copy of Hamlet is produced is really going to alter my feelings for the play. Sure, if it were 1650 and I had never heard of Shakespeare it would make a difference if it was printed on expensive paper. But at this point, when I’ve read Hamlet about five times, and am already well acquainted with “the bard” is it really going to matter if I’m reading a dog-eared paperback, or a leather bound edition with gold seal? I seriously doubt it; at least not once I get into the play. Partially this is my recognition of Shakespeare’s reputation, but I think that it would be true to some degree even if I’d somehow never heard of him. Quality of a work is more important than its presentation. But perhaps, as I said, I am missing part of Kastan’s argument?
Also, I found it pretty amazing that Shakespeare never profited from his printed plays, never attempted to publish them, and didn’t seem to care that other people were publishing them! How is that for irony?
My point is basically that this article sort of brought me down to earth a little bit. Of course it is impossible that any text could be exactly what was in the author’s mind. And certainly texts are going to have variations, specifically in the 1600’s. I also think Kastan is completely right in saying that a written text and the actual production of a play are two different things. Much of a play’s production does depend on the actors’ improvisations and non-verbal communications. Therefore, it is impossible for any written copy to claim it is “exactly as it was preformed on such and such a date.”
At the same time I do not know if I am in complete agreement with Kastan. Maybe I just don’t quite understand his argument, but I really don’t think that the way my copy of Hamlet is produced is really going to alter my feelings for the play. Sure, if it were 1650 and I had never heard of Shakespeare it would make a difference if it was printed on expensive paper. But at this point, when I’ve read Hamlet about five times, and am already well acquainted with “the bard” is it really going to matter if I’m reading a dog-eared paperback, or a leather bound edition with gold seal? I seriously doubt it; at least not once I get into the play. Partially this is my recognition of Shakespeare’s reputation, but I think that it would be true to some degree even if I’d somehow never heard of him. Quality of a work is more important than its presentation. But perhaps, as I said, I am missing part of Kastan’s argument?
Also, I found it pretty amazing that Shakespeare never profited from his printed plays, never attempted to publish them, and didn’t seem to care that other people were publishing them! How is that for irony?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Rant-- week 7?
Although at first I was a little bit intimidated by the length of this weeks reading, I actually found it very fascinating. I thought that the connections that the author drew were very interesting, and occasionally surprising. Although I knew that the medieval church was the sort of center of learning and ideas during the medieval period, I had never spent a lot of time thinking about why the church was so predominate at that time. Although I suppose that it is sort of obvious that one must study the communication technology of a given historical period to fully understand why certain ideas are prevalent at that time, it is not something that I would have automatically thought to examine.
One of the things that I found the most interesting in this piece of writing was the idea that words are powerful, even magical. Although I was somewhat familar with this idea from mythology, for example the idea that telling someone your name gives them a sort of power over you, it was still interesting to me that there was a time when people outside of mythology actually felt that way. For example, the idea that someone with the ability to write or copy a religious work was a sort of a "middleman" between God and man. As much as we value education, specifically literacy, in the modern world, I don't think there is anyone who would think of the ability to read and write as being magical.
And yet, literacy is power. This truth became especially apparent in the article when the author was speaking about censorship. He did say that many classical works were neglected during this time period because they were not seen as relevant, as much as they were specifically being "censored." But even if they were not purposely being ignored, the end result is the same. In a place where knowledge and education is concentrated in the hands of a few, those few people's ideas will be imposed on the masses as absolute truths. When this happens, it is almost inevitable that some voices will be supressed, whether it is intentional or not. And no matter how well-meaning such ideas are, this is never a good thing.
Although the printing press, the internet, and a thousand other advances in technology have changed our society in the last few hundred years, I think it is really important to remember this lesson. Democracy is based upon lots of different ideas vying for attention. We should remember that just because we disagree with someone's ideas, it is important that we still recognize them and discuss them as a society. I hope that I don't sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I think that it is important for us to pay attention to alternative news sources, such as blogs. The internet is full of potentially dangerous ideas, but the streamlining of information is also dangerous. Understanding different perspectives is important. And literacy, and the ability to express oneself eloquently, is still a form of power. One person's idea might help to change a lot of people's opinions, and in a way that kind of is magic.
One of the things that I found the most interesting in this piece of writing was the idea that words are powerful, even magical. Although I was somewhat familar with this idea from mythology, for example the idea that telling someone your name gives them a sort of power over you, it was still interesting to me that there was a time when people outside of mythology actually felt that way. For example, the idea that someone with the ability to write or copy a religious work was a sort of a "middleman" between God and man. As much as we value education, specifically literacy, in the modern world, I don't think there is anyone who would think of the ability to read and write as being magical.
And yet, literacy is power. This truth became especially apparent in the article when the author was speaking about censorship. He did say that many classical works were neglected during this time period because they were not seen as relevant, as much as they were specifically being "censored." But even if they were not purposely being ignored, the end result is the same. In a place where knowledge and education is concentrated in the hands of a few, those few people's ideas will be imposed on the masses as absolute truths. When this happens, it is almost inevitable that some voices will be supressed, whether it is intentional or not. And no matter how well-meaning such ideas are, this is never a good thing.
Although the printing press, the internet, and a thousand other advances in technology have changed our society in the last few hundred years, I think it is really important to remember this lesson. Democracy is based upon lots of different ideas vying for attention. We should remember that just because we disagree with someone's ideas, it is important that we still recognize them and discuss them as a society. I hope that I don't sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I think that it is important for us to pay attention to alternative news sources, such as blogs. The internet is full of potentially dangerous ideas, but the streamlining of information is also dangerous. Understanding different perspectives is important. And literacy, and the ability to express oneself eloquently, is still a form of power. One person's idea might help to change a lot of people's opinions, and in a way that kind of is magic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)